Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:16 PM
CDMichel's Avatar
CDMichel CDMichel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 109
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default MORE NORDYKE BRIEFS FILED

MULTIPLE LEGAL BRIEFS FILED IN NORDYKE v. ALAMEDA; NINTH CIRCUIT CASE MAY DETERMINE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SCRUTINIZING LAWS FACING SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGES

August 18, 2010

Today multiple briefs have been filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting gun show owners who have challenged an Alameda County ordinance banning firearms on county property, including the county fairgrounds. These include amicus briefs by the National Rifle Association, CATO Institute, Second Amendment Foundation, and Calguns Foundation, as well as the brief for the plaintiffs, the Nordykes. Yesterday the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) filed its amicus brief. Briefs on behalf of the County are being filed today as well.

Copies of the briefs are being posted at www.calgunlaws.com as they become available, aloing with an article about the case. Although you need not register to read the briefs, I would be grateful if those who visit the site register to receive future litigation updates and news items.
__________________
C. D. "Chuck" Michel
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Main: 562-216-4444 Email: cmichel@michellawyers.com
Website: www.michellawyers.com
Gun law info: www.calgunlaws.com
Subscribe to Receive News and Alerts


Last edited by CDMichel; 08-18-2010 at 1:18 PM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:19 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yay! Let's see gun shows back in Alameda ASAP.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:31 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thank you for the update. This is very encouraging.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:35 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

There are no links for the CGF brief or the Nordyke brief.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:41 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That case must have more briefs by now than Fruit of the Loom.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:44 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
There are no links for the CGF brief or the Nordyke brief.
He indicated he'd put up the briefs as they become available. They may simply not yet be available.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:46 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 674
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
There are no links for the CGF brief or the Nordyke brief.
The link for the CGF brief worked when I checked a minute ago, as did the link for the NRA brief. The CRPA Foundation brief is available on the second article down. And, I do not think the Nordyke's brief has been made available yet.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:57 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

The following links are on CalgunsLaws.com

Amicus Brief from Calguns Foundation

Amicus Brief from the NRA

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:59 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I followed the CGF brief and enjoyed it - and I think it makes some very good and valid points. However, if I were the judge and had the leeway that I do as a non-judge, then I'd pretty thoroughly trash a bunch of it.

And no way am I going to say why on an open forum.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-18-2010, 2:03 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

I look forward to the Nordyke brief.

So far the other three are second amendment heavy.

I want to see the first amendment argument.

It was nice to see that the NRA kept Clement around for this brief.

The CGF brief is great with the graphs and crime data.

I think we'll have a gun show by next summer!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-18-2010, 2:39 PM
Paul E Paul E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Zimbabwe
Posts: 183
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The LCAV Brief is such a trainwreck.

Favorites include: creative use of italics on page 11, and

Quote:
As this panel previously noted, the fairgrounds is a
“gathering place[] where high numbers of people might congregate,” and where a
shooter easily could do great harm (and in the past has).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-18-2010, 2:43 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

CGF brief is also available in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=333298

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-18-2010, 2:45 PM
PatriotnMore's Avatar
PatriotnMore PatriotnMore is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 7,076
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Thank you, everyone involved for the briefs filed. However this is the Ninth Circuit, what are the chances any brief in support of a pro gun issue will see a positive outcome, especially since when they couldn't make it stick under McDonald, they went to sensitive places as the vehicle?

I mean it appears pretty overt to me, they will turn around and use any excuse to justify a loss for the Nordykes, and throw out all logic concerning facts.
__________________
‎"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison
'Letter to Edmund Pendleton', 1792
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-18-2010, 2:51 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,994
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotnMore View Post
Thank you, everyone involved for the briefs filed. However this is the Ninth Circuit, what are the chances any brief in support of a pro gun issue will see a positive outcome, especially since when they couldn't make it stick under McDonald, they went to sensitive places as the vehicle?
We've done pretty well in the 9th so far. This case has lived far far beyond expectations due to a mix of the quality of legal work and the substantive issues addressed.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-18-2010, 2:53 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotnMore View Post
Thank you, everyone involved for the briefs filed. However this is the Ninth Circuit, what are the chances any brief in support of a pro gun issue will see a positive outcome, especially since when they couldn't make it stick under McDonald, they went to sensitive places as the vehicle?

I mean it appears pretty overt to me, they will turn around and use any excuse to justify a loss for the Nordykes, and throw out all logic concerning facts.
Judges really don't like having their decisions reversed.

In this case, if the 9th Circuit rules against strict scrutiny you can expect an appeal to SCOTUS and for SCOTUS to reverse and remand. That would be the legal equivalent of a slap in the face and being called stupid. They usually don't want that to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-18-2010, 3:25 PM
AndrewMendez's Avatar
AndrewMendez AndrewMendez is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 626
Posts: 7,301
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

CGF FTW!
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-18-2010, 3:36 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Fodder for the unintentional joke of the day, from the Nordykes' brief (emphasis mine):

Quote:
A recent en banc panel of this Court struck down regulations of expressive conduct on pubic property on mere intermediate scrutiny grounds . . . .
Aside from that and an incorrect use of the phrase "begs the question," still a good read.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-18-2010, 4:01 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6tac View Post
Fodder for the unintentional joke of the day, from the Nordykes' brief (emphasis mine):



Aside from that and an incorrect use of the phrase "begs the question," still a good read.
That is very funny! Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-18-2010, 4:05 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

The Nordyke brief was a good read.

Quote:
Given this case’s present posture and the recent developments in
Second Amendment law, it is surprising the County has not requested
that the matter be returned to the trial court for discovery and further
litigation. The Appellants agree that the matter may be resolved by
this Court without a remand to the trial court2, but the consequence of
that development has to be a judicial finding that the County has
offered no evidence to support its bald assertion that banning gun
shows at the Fairgrounds, by banning guns at gun shows, will reduce
crime in Alameda County.
How about them LCAV lawyers?!!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-18-2010, 4:17 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

I should also mention that SAF's brief written by Alan Gura is very nice.

I don't know if this is a good thing in legal circles but it's easy to read. I always enjoy reading his filings.

The LCAV brief claims that intermediate scrutiny should be applied and that reducing gun violence is a valid government interest.

Too bad they can't enter any evidence to support that and all of the quotes about how the regulation's author was just trying to find a way to ban the gun show...
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-18-2010, 4:22 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul E View Post
The LCAV Brief is such a trainwreck.

Favorites include: creative use of italics on page 11, and
Quote:
Quote:
As this panel previously noted, the fairgrounds is a
“gathering place[] where high numbers of people might congregate,” and where a
shooter easily could do great harm (and in the past has).
Oh, my GOD. LMFAO.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-18-2010, 4:56 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gura's SAF brief is stellar, as usual. He demonstrates an outstanding, scholarly comprehension of the various judicial approaches that might be employed by the court. He deftly rules out the ones that are irrelevant, leaving the pathway clear to only apply strict scrutiny, or avoid the question of scrutiny altogether.

After reading this brief, I think the gun show has a very bright future.

Unless I am misreading the sentence somehow, I did find what I think to be a typo in the SAF brief; I would correct it thusly:
Quote:
Heller’s lesson, that the Second Amendment constitutionality of at
least some gun laws some may be resolved without reference to a level of scrutiny, has evaded some courts.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 08-18-2010 at 5:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2010, 6:08 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 674
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Brady Center Brief

Just wanted to let everyone know that the Brady Center Amicus Brief, the one I am sure you have all been waiting for, is now available on www.calgunlaws.com with all the others. There are nine briefs posted there in total as of right now.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2010, 6:34 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Just wanted to let everyone know that the Brady Center Amicus Brief, the one I am sure you have all been waiting for, is now available on www.calgunlaws.com with all the others. There are nine briefs posted there in total as of right now.
Let's quote McDonald for Brady:
Quote:
Municipal respondents maintain that the Second Amendment differs from all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights because it concerns the right to possess a deadly implement and thus has implications for public safety. Brief for Municipal Respondents 11. And they note that there is intense disagreement on the question whether the private possession of guns in the home in- creases or decreases gun deaths and injuries. Id., at 11, 13–17
.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category.
Brady. Old dog. No new tricks.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2010, 6:41 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6tac View Post
Fodder for the unintentional joke of the day, from the Nordykes' brief (emphasis mine):



Aside from that and an incorrect use of the phrase "begs the question," still a good read.
Honest your honor, the brief was proof-read several times by my colleagues in the adult entertainment firms. They didn't see anything amiss.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-18-2010, 6:58 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just read the LCAV brief. . .

Not being a lawyer I may have missed something, but it seemed pretty tenuous at best. My comments aren't out of an abundance of certitude in my opinion but in hopes that the legally competent minds will tell me how far off base I really am.

Let's see. . .

They did a lot of hand-waving as they reached back to Heller which incorporated the 2A against D.C. and largely ignored McDonald as it was applied to the states (making it a more directly applicable precedent - especially since it is more recent).

They then tossed out the entire scrutiny concept in order to come up with their own categorical system and went back to truly ancient cases and cited the previous Nordyke panel's decision from prior to McDonald in order to use a convoluted argument to make it somehow work out. Now the idea of repeatedly citing the 9th Circuit panel makes good sense to me politically - but that's about the best I could get out of it as a non-lawyer.

Well, I suspect this was as good as it's going to get. I think Strict Scrutiny has pretty good odds based on Nordyke.

I couldn't get the Brady brief to open in FireFox. It seems not to play nice with some of your links so I'll try another browser.

Edit: Note that I mention the FireFox problem not so that the link will be fixed but so that others who use FireFox and may have the same issue will know to try another browser - I'm having no problems in Internet Explorer.

Last edited by OleCuss; 08-18-2010 at 7:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-18-2010, 7:05 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I will send out a personal thank you to all amici tomorrow, but for now I am truly grateful to all who supported this effort. I thank you. My clients thank you.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-18-2010, 7:08 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just read the Brady brief. I'm dumbfounded!

Is it really as stupid as I thought it was? I mean, I just gained new respect for LCAV!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-18-2010, 7:54 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Just read the Brady brief. I'm dumbfounded!

Is it really as stupid as I thought it was? I mean, I just gained new respect for LCAV!
Yeah. Sad thought isn't it?

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-18-2010, 9:54 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 674
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Let's quote McDonald for Brady:


Brady. Old dog. No new tricks.

-Gene
Geez Gene, when you quote me and then smack down "Brady" like that it makes me consider changing my name again, but then I think about how bad it must rub them to know one of their namesake is playing for the other team.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:20 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So this case is coming down to "sensitive place" status?

I take it a school ground is a sensitive place. On what merits are they arguing that the fairgrounds are a sensitive place, children present?
__________________
Lucky you.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:43 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Geez Gene, when you quote me and then smack down "Brady" like that it makes me consider changing my name again, but then I think about how bad it must rub them to know one of their namesake is playing for the other team.
Sean - heh.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:48 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
So this case is coming down to "sensitive place" status?

I take it a school ground is a sensitive place. On what merits are they arguing that the fairgrounds are a sensitive place, children present?
As I read it:

"Ummm, there are lots of people there."
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:55 PM
CalNRA's Avatar
CalNRA CalNRA is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,696
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brady Center Brief
V. ANGLO-AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE HAS ALWAYS DEFERRED TO
STATES’ BROAD POWERS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC BY REGULATING
FIREARMS
I lol'ed
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
This is not rocket surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-18-2010, 11:27 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The 27 page LCAV brief essentially boils down to their statement:

Quote:
The case for Alameda County’s fairgrounds being a “sensitive place” historically beyond the scope of the right to keep and bear arms is remarkably straightforward...the fairgrounds is a “gathering place[] where high numbers of people might congregate,” and where a shooter easily could do great harm (and in the past has). The fairgrounds thus fits perfectly within the historical “sensitive places” exclusion and is outside the bounds of the Second Amendment.
So anytime there are a "high number" of people gathered, you lose a fundament right?! They don't even say what a "high number" is (10,100,1000?). Pathetic.

ETA: Actually, it's even worse. They say it's were a high number might congregate. I suppose we only have this fundamental right at the poles and uninhabited islands.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor

Last edited by 2009_gunner; 08-18-2010 at 11:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:13 AM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009_gunner View Post
So anytime there are a "high number" of people gathered, you lose a fundament right?!
LOL.

Quote:
I suppose we only have this fundamental right at the poles and uninhabited islands.
Where the polar bears and sharks are harmless.

From the NRA brief:

Quote:
See Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439, 443, vacated 575 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that author of ordinance “declared she had ‘been trying to get rid of gun shows on Count[y] property’ for ‘about three years,’ but she had ‘gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution, and been attacked by aggressive gun toting mobs on right wing talk radio’”).
Grrrrrr.
__________________
Lucky you.

Last edited by 2Bear; 08-19-2010 at 12:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-19-2010, 12:29 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
On what merits are they arguing that the fairgrounds are a sensitive place, children present?
On no merits whatsoever. As Gura points out in the SAF brief, not even Alameda is alleging the fairground to be a sensitive place, as they allow licensed CCW. The sensitive place argument is null and void in this case.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-19-2010, 5:32 AM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Brady Brief Bets on Breyer's Dissent?

Brady's Nordyke amicus is weak, contradictory, and relies on cites that won't pass minimal review. For instance ...

"Second, Heller “implicitly, and appropriately, reject[ed]” a strict scrutiny standard. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2851 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“Indeed, adoption of a true strict-scrutiny standard for evaluating gun regulations would be impossible”)."

Breyer's arguments LOST Brady bumpkins. I think I'd rather rely on the McDonald majority...

"In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

And as Judge Urbina wrote in Heller 2's denial of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff...

Quoting "United States v. Darrington, 351 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating that “if [a court] intended to recognize that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a ‘fundamental right,’ in the sense that restrictions on this right are subject to ‘strict scrutiny’ by the courts and require a ‘compelling state interest,’ it would have used these constitutional terms of art”))."

Well 9th Circuit, unless you want to be reversed, it's strict scrutiny. The McDonald majority opinion is abundantly clear. Back to the drawing board guys.

On a related note (non-Nordyke) I'm not sure what Mr. Heller's options are at this point, but if it went back to Judge Urbina, he'd pretty much HAVE to reverse himself.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-19-2010, 7:39 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009_gunner View Post
So anytime there are a "high number" of people gathered, you lose a fundament right?! They don't even say what a "high number" is (10,100,1000?). Pathetic.

ETA: Actually, it's even worse. They say it's were a high number might congregate. I suppose we only have this fundamental right at the poles and uninhabited islands.
That's basically why they don't mind RKBA accessible in rural areas and lower population density states. As far as they're concerned that's uninhabited area where they personally will never go. As I've said before, it's segregation come to life again.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-19-2010, 7:51 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,862
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDMichel View Post
MULTIPLE LEGAL BRIEFS FILED IN NORDYKE v. ALAMEDA; NINTH CIRCUIT CASE MAY DETERMINE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SCRUTINIZING LAWS FACING SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGES

August 18, 2010

Today multiple briefs have been filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting gun show owners who have challenged an Alameda County ordinance banning firearms on county property, including the county fairgrounds. These include amicus briefs by the National Rifle Association, CATO Institute, Second Amendment Foundation, and Calguns Foundation, as well as the brief for the plaintiffs, the Nordykes. Yesterday the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) filed its amicus brief. Briefs on behalf of the County are being filed today as well.

Copies of the briefs are being posted at www.calgunlaws.com as they become available, aloing with an article about the case. Although you need not register to read the briefs, I would be grateful if those who visit the site register to receive future litigation updates and news items.
I registered, but I found the * on each field, with the footnote below stating "the fields marked with * are required" to be a bit humorous. They ALL were marked. Wouldn't it have been easier to have merely stated "all fields are required"?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:45 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.